Hypothetical threat

masterwriter

if Tom gets a threatening phone call from Mary, what makes it threatening?

Is it threatening if Mary intended to threaten or if Tom perceived it as threatening?

Tom Young

Well the answer can be either caller. It depends on the subject of the conversation and what the objective circumstances of the transaction are given the actual or perceived threat.

This can fall under a number of headings in the Criminal Law:

1. Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997;
2. Ichoate Offences - Durress, threats;
3. Incitement to hatred, under the 1989 Act;
4. Public Order Offences, under the 1994 Act; and
5. As this was a phone call, this can be defined best under 1997 Act.

Proofs can be determined in a number of fashions. Either under the 1998 Data Protection Act, or the Criminal Justice (Counter Terrorism) 2005, Act.

5.—(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another a threat, by any means intending the other to believe it will be carried out, to kill or cause serious harm to that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence.

[GA] (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

[GA] ( a ) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

[GA] ( b ) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both.

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

[GA] (2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

[GA] ( a ) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

[GA] ( b ) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

[GA] (3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may, specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.

[GA] (4) A person who fails to comply with the terms of an order under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.

[GA] (5) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied that the person should be convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may nevertheless make an order under subsection (3) upon an application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice so to do.

[GA] (6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

[GA] ( a ) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

[GA] ( b ) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.

masterwriter

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone

What if Mary felt agrieved by an action of Tom and had reasonable excuse and her 'threat' was that she would take a legal action if he did not correct a false hood recorded about her on his computer system under data protection

pirelli

masterwriter wrote: »

What if Mary felt agrieved by an action of Tom and had reasonable excuse and her 'threat' was that she would take a legal action if he did not correct a false hood recorded about her on his computer system under data protection

Well then she would have lawful excuse, although that doesn't entitle Mary to cause undue distress to Tom. If Tom is claiming the whole ordeal about the data protection is causing him distress...Mary should realise that the data controller might not be Tom and Mary might try to contact the data controller. If Tom is the data controller then that's part of his job but Tom would be entitled to a hostile free environment unless he was antagonising Mary. Then ... I just dont know. I suppose Tom can be a pain in the arse.

Tom Young

masterwriter wrote: »

What if Mary felt agrieved by an action of Tom and had reasonable excuse and her 'threat' was that she would take a legal action if he did not correct a false hood recorded about her on his computer system under data protection

There is a remedy under the DP act for this type of activity.

Victor

What if Tom phones Dick, but then Dick starts being abusive, threatenting, etc.?